Lance, latest have we done it yet.

I think their comment was that they support the evidence about Lance and the others, but do not accept the witness testimony that they covered up tests and this is why they’re going for Kimmage. It’s bullshit I’d imagine but that’s the way the UCI roll.

Perhaps not. But we all have a choice. LA didn’t hold them down and inject them. They all had to answer the question “should I cheat” and they all said yes.
I don’t believe that he can be held up as the chief big daddy drugs pusher of cycling.

It may be getting overplayed, but hasn’t the point also been made that after the Festina affair cycling had a chance to try and ‘go clean’ – arguably LA was a key factor in making sure that didn’t happen.

Perhaps not. But we all have a choice. LA didn’t hold them down and inject them. They all had to answer the question “should I cheat” and they all said yes.
I don’t believe that he can be held up as the chief big daddy drugs pusher of cycling.

Perhaps if you followed the story, you would realise that there were those who refused to dope, and got hounded out of the sport. In most peoples lives opportunities don’t come around every corner, it’s not easy to turn your back on the one that you have.

Perhaps not. But we all have a choice. LA didn’t hold them down and inject them. They all had to answer the question “should I cheat” and they all said yes.

I agree. Plenty of riders said no and walked away from their dreams rather than compromise their morals. These men were weak and chose to dope rather than ride clean or walk away.

I don’t believe that he can be held up as the chief big daddy drugs pusher of cycling.

I disagree. He created an environment where it was clear that to beat him you needed to dope and also that if you doped you COULD get away with it. He enforced the omerta more publicly than anyone else (although Simeoni and Bassons team mates have a LOT to answer for).

I don’t believe that he can be held up as the chief big daddy drugs pusher of cycling.

based on what?

Perhaps if you followed the story

That’s exactly what I think it is. We’ve had one side of it so far.

That’s exactly what I think it is. We’ve had one side of it so far.

And why is that?

Perhaps not. But we all have a choice. LA didn’t hold them down and inject them. They all had to answer the question “should I cheat” and they all said yes.
I don’t believe that he can be held up as the chief big daddy drugs pusher of cycling.

I agree with you to a point, although it’s pretty clear that Lance and riders like him reinforced a situation that you dope or you lose.

Much of the ‘noise’ about this case is actually internet discussion and media reporting. USADA, just conducted a complex investigation triggered by Lances return to cycling. Made a few press releases and not really that much else.

That’s exactly what I think it is. We’ve had one side of it so far.

We have had Lance’s side of the story for years, 2 books, countless interviews, and you still seem to be reciting directly from his twitter account.

If anything, his side of the story had had far far far more airtime than the case for the prosecution (which he decided not to challenge through due process).

And why is that?

Because Lance has kept his mouth shut so far and as we all know; if you get 2 versions of any story the truth will be in the middle somewhere. It’ll come out eventually.
I’m no supporter of LA BTW, it just seems to me that he’s not been treated as is consistent with other dopers and some of this is due to public pressure who’s perception has been affected by these unsubstantiated side stories (such as LA is a drugs pusher etc).

and you still seem to be reciting directly from his twitter account.

I have never looked at his twitter page. Not once.

If anything, his side of the story had had far far far more airtime than the case for the prosecution (which he decided not to challenge through due process).

From a neutral who doesn’t read the cycling press, only mainstream; this is simply not true.

Here we go, the list of winners. 😉

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/blazin-saddles/really-won-tours-lance-153516263.html

it just seems to me that he’s not been treated as is consistent with other dopers

Are you saying that USADA/WADA have done something beyond there rules?

That was an appalling performance by the journalists in the room there. So many things they could and should have asked McQuaid about. Why did nobody ask him why he fought so hard to block USADA’s jurisdiction in this whole business?

wrecker – He’s had years to come clean but has lied, cajoled and bullied. Who can believe a word that comes out of his mouth?

That was an appalling performance by the journalists in the room there. So many things they could and should have asked McQuaid about. Why did nobody ask him why he fought so hard to block USADA’s jurisdiction in this whole business?

Totally agree. I’m guessing Walsh, Kimmage and Whittle weren’t invited…

The inner rings view on who should be awarded the tour wins is a very interesting (and valid IMO) take on things.

Judgement Day

To paraphrase…

Bending the rules to suit is what got the UCI into this circumstance in the first place. Therefore they should stick rigidly to the here to give them weight in the future. That is that Armstrong should be removeed and everyone elevated up a place. Making the winners:
1999 Alex Zülle
2000 Jan Ullrich
2001 Jan Ullrich
2002 Joseba Beloki
2003 Jan Ullrich
2004 Andreas Klöden
2005 Ivan Basso

[The new winners] can hardly dine out on the news, don’t expect them to have the champagne on ice. In fact they will just feel more heat as the media asks whether they too used more EPO than a ward of chemo patients.

right from the start i had no wish to be included in the “we” collective gullible lance fans that you mentioned.

The we meant that at some point all fans thought LA was clean or hoped or diod not know for sure he doped. you may be alone in knowing contador was cheat before it happened and also LA but i lacked that ability to know before the evidence , forgive me this inability.

Because Lance has kept his mouth shut so far

He squealedloudly about his innocence for years and sued anyone who said differently so it is only now he has decided to STFU

and as we all know; if you get 2 versions of any story the truth will be in the middle somewhere.

Have you considered th epossibility that oine is telling the truth and the other lieing..it may be wirth considering this in this case

It’ll come out eventually.

Yes it has

I’m no supporter of LA BTW, it just seems to me that he’s not been treated as is consistent with other dopers and some of this is due to public pressure who’s perception has been affected by these unsubstantiated side stories (such as LA is a drugs pusher etc).

Should have been a piece of piss to challenge those unsubstantiated side stories – iirc the courts call this eye witness testimony as the people have seen the offences happen

[McEnroe] you canot be serious[/McEnroe]

A good interview on Radio 4 this morning was saying that he should be stripped of the wins (which he has been) but the results of those years voided as pretty much all of the riders were at it!

Has this been confirmed as yet or just Lance’s wins voided?

Pat McQuaid, 16th August 2012:

It is clear that USADA has no jurisdiction in this case and also that USA Cycling has no jurisdiction: USA Cycling and USADA can/could only do what UCI requested them to do. Such request was limited to an investigation into the case and did not comprise the decision on whether proceedings should be opened or not.

It is clear also that USADA cannot not rely on any delegation by USA Cycling as USA Cycling can delegate no more than what was delegated by UCI to USA Cycling and such delegation was limited to an investigation.

This should be clear to USADA and USADA should act or refrain to act accordingly.

Yet to the extent that USADA still would try to rely on any delegation by USA Cycling and insofar as necessary, we request USA Cycling to promptly instruct USADA that it has no authority to act or proceed on the basis of ADR or any other rule of the UCI or otherwise on behalf of UCI and/or USA Cycling, cannot act under a delegation from USA Cycling and must hand over the case to the UCI

d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/2012-08-16+McQuaid+UCI+to+Johnson+USAC+re.+UCI+Jurisdiction.pdf

I can’t BELIEVE he wasn’t challenged on this today.

Oakley have now sacked him off

http://www.oakley.com/sports/road-cycling/posts/3806?cm_mmc=twitter-_-news-story-_-lance-armstrong-_-_

The UCI has said they need to discuss this on Friday. Frankly, it’s not pretty which ever way it goes as every single person in the Inrng article has been busted for doping but, it has to be said, not neccesarily during the period they’d win the TdF.

Yep people went after Millar etc for money back. Both Millar and Bertie had victories and prize money stripped. It took Millar until 2010 to pay off his debts.

Have you considered th epossibility that oine is telling the truth and the other lieing..it may be wirth considering this in this case

No. Neither shall I until I hear the other side. Cheers for the recommendation though.

Yep people went after Millar etc for money back. Both Millar and Bertie had victories and prize money stripped. It took Millar until 2010 to pay off his debts.

fair enough. Good to hear actually.

Oakley have now sacked him off

http://www.oakley.com/sports/road-cycling/posts/3806?cm_mmc=twitter-_-news-story-_-lance-armstrong-_-_

Just waiting for the DX endorsement announcement now then.

No. Neither shall I until I hear the other side. Cheers for the recommendation though

GOODWIN ALERT We never got Hitlers side of the story you know what with him killing himself …you still fence sitting on that one then?

I really dont get what your point is …no one is guilty unless they confess. If you say nothing we cannot know what you did? If you doid not see it happen we cannot possibly know

He has released statements saying it is a witchunt etc, denying it etc – what more are you waiting for ? – he denies it STILL now decide who is telling the truth

I really dont get what your point is …no one is guilty unless they confess. If you say nothing we cannot know what you did? If you did not see it happen we cannot possibly know

Are you one of my children trolling me?

I have no idea how you have gathered that from my post. It’s a very strange way of thinking. I have NOT said, inferred or suggested that he’s innocent in any way or shape.
That wasn’t the discussion and it wasn’t even on the table.
I do not understand how you have arrived at what you have written above.

2005 tour. I discount Evans due to his connections to Dr Ferrari so I’m elevating the next ‘clean’ rider Zubeldia as winner. Unless.. . This is SOME rabbit hole, it just gives me a headache. I’m burning all my Pharmstrong dvds and books tonight. “Its Not About the Bike” no sh1t Sherlock! “I’ve never tested positive”, just like I’ve never been done for speeding.

evans has no connection with Dr Ferrari…?!

He admitted that he worked with Ferrari once. From what he said it was for tests when he was converting from XC to road riding and wanted to understand his capacities. No independent verification but he released the info rather than it coming out.

I have no idea how you have gathered that from my post. It’s a very strange way of thinking. I have NOT said, inferred or suggested that he’s innocent in any way or shape.
That wasn’t the discussion and it wasn’t even on the table.
I do not understand how you have arrived at what you have written above.

Perhaps you want to go back over the past couple of pages and read your own posts, you have just recited all the standard Armstrong excuses and smokescreens.

1999 Alex Zülle
2000 Jan Ullrich
2001 Jan Ullrich
2002 Joseba Beloki
2003 Jan Ullrich
2004 Andreas Klöden
2005 Ivan Basso

Anyone else find it a bit pointless when they’re taking wins off of someone for being a drugs cheat and giving them to other drugs cheats?

Perhaps you want to go back over the past couple of pages and read your own posts, you have just recited all the standard Armstrong excuses and smokescreens.

Bollocks. Sorry to be blunt but you’re talking shite.

Bollocks. Sorry to be blunt but you’re talking shite.

Thats what they said to Lance.

UCI are deciding friday how the 7 tours will be shown – but more likely they will just mark them with an asterisk and note the winners as having been proven druggies…

More importantly 2009 – if he loses that Wiggins goes up to third!

Neither shall I until I hear the other side

Jeez – Armstrong has been repeating his side ad-nauseum for the past X years, only stopping when it was clear he couldn’t win and backing out was his best form of damage limitation. What exactly are you expecting to hear from him that you haven’t heard before?

Bollocks. Sorry to be blunt but you’re talking shite.

Way to subtle an argument for me to tease apart 😉

It does read like LA defencism IMHO. Perhaps better to just state what you are saying then as you seem to have confused a number of us – we will take the blame if that helps

AFAIK, Kloden was about the only clean* rider to have been on the podium alongside him!

Nope – clearly implicated in some doping scandal or another. I think the honour of being the only clean* rider on the podium with Lance goes to Escartin.

* in the sense that he’s never been even implicated in any doping scheme or scandal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernando_Escartín
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/19927300

Oh dear – not much wrong with what he said, but he clearly didn’t anticipate the headline which makes him seem a bit of an apologist (I’m guessing the journos are going round all known cyclists in the hope of getting somebody to slip up).

I’m no supporter of LA BTW, it just seems to me that he’s not been treated as is consistent with other dopers and some of this is due to public pressure who’s perception has been affected by these unsubstantiated side stories (such as LA is a drugs pusher etc).

Once more. I have no dog in this race, I don’t care about Lance Armstrong, Bradley Wiggins, Contador or any other rider. I just find the sudden popularity of the LA hatefest unpalatable, when from what I can tell; apart from being a dickhead he’s not done much that a great number of cyclists haven’t, before and since.

I just find the sudden popularity of the LA hatefest unpalatable

It’s not a new thing, it’s only apparent now because the dam has broken. All the things in the USADA report have been known and talked about for years, despite the threats of legal action from the Armstrong lawyers.

Betsy Andreu is a name you should look up.

he’s not done much that a great number of cyclists haven’t, before and since.

Well if you ignore the hounding of Simeoni and Bassons (and Betsy Andreu etc.), being very much in charge of his team’s doping programme, encouraging team-mates to dope and disenfranchising those who weren’t willing to get with the programme, then yes you’re probably right. All very unfair on poor old Lance.